DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their October 2, 2025 response to the July 3, 2025 Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 – 16, and 19 – 26 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting rejection of Claims 16, and 19 – 24, Applicant remarked that they have “amended the independent claims. Therefore, this rejection is moot.”
The examiner respectfully notes that the amended limitation discloses “wherein the (nozzle) opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber”. As Applicant did not discuss where support for the amendment is found in their disclosure, the examiner respectfully notes that it appears specification1 paragraph [0027] discusses relative dimensions of the nozzle slot (fig 3: (215)). Paragraph [0027] discloses:
“The nozzle 210 includes an elongated slot-shaped opening 215.. The elongated slot-shaped opening 215 has a width d1 greater than a height h1. The width d1 of the elongated slot-shaped opening 215 may be substantially equal to a width d2 of the mixing chamber 240…As used herein, the term "substantially" means at least almost entirely. In quantitative terms, "substantially" means at least 80% of a stated reference (e.g., quantity or shape).”
In Application 16/527514, Claim 14 (ln 15) discloses “wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width”, and Claim 25 (ln 3) discloses “wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width”. As Applicant has defined “substantially” to mean “at least almost entirely” as well as “at least 80%”, the amendment does not overcome the Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting rejection.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejections of claims 1, 6 – 11, 14 – 16, and 19 - 26 as being unpatentable over Beckman (US 2016/0325841), in view of Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton (US 6,004,204), Applicant remarks that (inter alia)“the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least… wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber”.
The examiner respectfully notes two points in response to Applicant’s remarks:
First, support is not found for the limitation “wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber”, and
Second, Applicant has stated that the comparative widths are “substantially equal”; “substantially” equal defined as being in a range between “at least 80%” and “almost entirely” [0027].
Accordingly, support is not found for the limitation “the opening has a width that is 80% of a width of the mixing chamber”. Instead, support is provided for wherein the comparative widths are “substantially equal”, in a range between “at least 80%” and “almost entirely”.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is respectfully requested that Applicant review claims 12 and 11 filed October 25, 2023, and the office action dated January 31, 2024, where Claim 1 was rejected over Larsson (US 2012/0015600) in view of Luxton et al (US 6,004,204), and Claim 11 was rejected over Luxton et al (US 6,004,204). The claims filed April 2, 2024, in response to the office action dated January 31, 2024, were amended to remove the recitation of the nozzle opening including a slot, wherein the slot having a first width is substantially equal to the second width” of the mixing chamber.
While the cited sections of the applied references may not disclose “wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber”, as Applicant has defined that “substantially” as being in a range between “at least 80%” and “almost entirely”, is maintained that Luxton discloses “wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width”; Applicant’s own admission that “substantially” means at least almost entirely, and means at least 80% of a stated reference.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejections of claims 12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Beckman (US 2016/0325841), in view of Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton (US 6,004,204), and further in view of Sherer et al (US 6,024,639) Applicant remarks that (inter alia)“claims 12 and 13 are patentable for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 11”
The examiner respectfully submits that, although the prior art does not explicitly state that the (nozzle) opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing opening, such a configuration of a nozzle in an induction system is known, as evidenced by Wagner et al (DE 10 2011 117091) discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13, 6 – 11, 14 – 16, and 19 – 26 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al (US 2016/0325841), in view of Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton et al (US 6,004,204), and further in view of Wagner et al (DE 10 2011 117091).
In re Claim 1, and 6 – 10, Beckman et al discloses a passenger cabin air distribution system (fig 2: (232)) comprising:
a diffuser (fig 2: (240a)) having a first end, and a second end opposite the first end (apparent), the diffuser comprising:
a primary inlet (proximal duct (233)) positioned at the first end; and
a diffuser section (240) including a discharge port [0028], the diffuser section being positioned at the second end (proximal cabin (102)), and
PNG
media_image2.png
461
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an airflow outlet (annotated, above) coupled to at least one window vent (“glareshield outlets” [0028] and to at least one avionics (fig 2: (276, 282, 286)) air supply (240bc, d) [0029],
wherein the airflow outlet is operable to receive a portion of a flow of conditioned air (A2) from a ventilation system (232), and direct the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window vent, wherein the airflow outlet is further operable to the portion of the conditioned air to an electronics system [0063] via the at least one avionics electronics system for cooling [0045], wherein the diffuser (240) connects with the airflow outlet (240b, c, d) upstream from the at least one window vent and the at least one avionics air supply4;
wherein the airflow outlet (annotated fig 2, above) includes a branch to provide the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window vent, and wherein the branch is upstream from the at least one avionics air supply5.
Regarding the limitation “an airflow outlet coupled to at least one window vent”, the examiner notes that Beckman et al figure 2 indicates cooled air may be ducted to cockpit glareshield outlets (at least one window vent) and to overhead outlets [0028].
While Beckman et al does not explicitly state that the overhead outlets (fig 2: (240)) comprise window outlets (windows disclosed in fig 1), as Beckman et al discloses glareshield outlets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also provide at least one window vent in addition to the windshield vent, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application (specification paragraph [0020]), Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the ejector-diffuser connects with the airflow outlet upstream from the at least one window vent and the at least one avionics air supply”6 and “a branch to provide the portion of the conditioned air to the at least one window vent” 7Beckman et al discloses:
one or more evaporators with evaporator fans (only one is shown in figure 2: (232)), cooled air from the (one or more) evaporators may be ducted to cockpit glareshield outlets (at least one window vent) and to overhead outlets [0028], and
after cooling the cabin occupants, the cooled air is drawn though the equipment racks [0029], and
additionally, or alternatively, cooling manifold outlets [0019] may be interfaced with the one or more outlets [0029], coupled to associated racks.
Beckman et al is silent as to whether a diffuser (an air supply port) for the cockpit precedes (upstream of) the vents (air supply ports) for windows (fig 1) and the avionics/electronics.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a diffuser (air supply port) upstream of (preceding) window vents and avionics/electronics vents, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Further, shifting the location of the diffuser element upstream of the window and avionics/electronics vents would not modify/affect the operation of the system.
Beckman et al lacks wherein the diffuser is an ejector-diffuser, the ejector-diffuser comprising:
a nozzle positioned between the first end and the second end, the nozzle including an opening in communication with the primary inlet, the nozzle defining an initial chamber adjacent to the first end and a mixing chamber, the mixing chamber being adjacent to the second end,
wherein the mixing chamber has a uniform rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to a distal end of the mixing chamber, and
wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber8;
an induction unit including a secondary inlet, the secondary inlet in communication with the mixing chamber9; and
wherein the mixing chamber does not include a plurality of vanes10;
wherein the discharge port includes a plurality of slots11, wherein the plurality of slots further comprises a plurality of arcuate slots12.
wherein the opening has a first height, wherein the mixing chamber has a second height, and wherein the first height of the opening is less than the second height of the mixing chamber13.
Walkinshaw teaches an air ejector-diffuser (figs 4, 11A: (42)) for an aircraft or a spacecraft [0021], the ejector-diffuser having a first end (12) and a second end (46) opposite the first end (apparent), the ejector-diffuser comprising:
a primary inlet (30) positioned at the first end;
a nozzle (fig 4: (81,84)) positioned between the first end (30) and the second end (46), the nozzle including an opening (apparent), the opening in communication with the primary inlet (via (80)), the nozzle (81,84) defining an initial chamber (80) adjacent to the first end and a mixing chamber (70), the mixing chamber (70) being adjacent to the second end (46),
PNG
media_image3.png
428
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the mixing chamber (70) has a uniform rectangular cross-section (as seen in fig 11B), in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber (70) extending from the opening (84) to a distal end (at (16)) of the mixing chamber (46) (at least in one plane, a rectangular cross section understood to be disclosed by figure 11A14),
an induction unit (72) including a secondary inlet (74), the secondary inlet in (fluid) communication with the mixing chamber (70) [0019]; and
a diffuser section including a discharge port (46), the diffuser section being positioned at the second end [0125], the discharge port in communication with the mixing chamber (70)15, and
wherein the mixing chamber (70) does not include a plurality of vanes (no vanes are disclosed within the mixing chamber)16; and
wherein the discharge port includes a plurality of slots (46)17, wherein the plurality of slots further comprises a plurality of arcuate slots (due to curved elements (16))18.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beckman et al, as taught by Walkinshaw, such the diffuser is an ejector-diffuser, the ejector-diffuser comprising:
a nozzle positioned between the first end and the second end, the nozzle including an opening, the opening in communication with the primary inlet, the nozzle defining an initial chamber adjacent to the first end and a mixing chamber, the mixing chamber being adjacent to the second end,
wherein the mixing chamber has a uniform rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to a distal end of the mixing chamber;
an induction unit including a secondary inlet, the secondary inlet in communication with the mixing chamber; and
wherein the diffuser discharge port is in communication with the mixing chamber19,
wherein the mixing chamber does not include a plurality of vanes20;
wherein the discharge port includes a plurality of slots, wherein the plurality of slots further comprises a plurality of arcuate slots21,
for the benefit of an induction system that provides additional clean ventilation air without the use of local fans/blowers or compressors [0020], without the need to recirculate air centrally, offering the potential for weight and energy savings while improving protection against pathogen spread [0164].
While Walkinshaw teaches systems that comprise a nozzle that comprises one or more jets openings directed at the mix chamber [0114] (figs 1, 4), and systems that comprise a single nozzle [0138] (fig 22B), Walkinshaw is silent as to whether the opening has a first height, wherein the mixing chamber has a second height, and wherein the first height of the opening is less than the second height of the mixing chamber22.
However, the technique of providing dimensional ratios in induction units to improve entrainment of secondary air is known in the ventilation arts, as evidenced by Luxton.
Luxton et al teaches an ejector-diffuser (fig 5: (20)) for a space craft (col 2, ln 49 – 51), or a passenger cabin (col 2, lns 10 – 32), the ejector-diffuser (fig 5: (20)) comprising:
a primary inlet (annotated, below) positioned at a first end (22);
an induction unit comprising a secondary inlet and a single23 nozzle (28) (col 9, lns 17 – 23; “can be used solely”: col 5, lns 63 – 64) with an opening,
wherein the opening causes a local reduction in static pressure of a flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system flowing through the opening, and
wherein the local reduction in static pressure causes an induced flow of cabin air to flow through the secondary inlet;24 (col 5, lns 28 – 34) and
the nozzle (28) positioned between the first end (22) and a second end (23),
the nozzle (28) including an opening (apparent, as nozzles have openings) in communication with the primary inlet (annotated below),
the nozzle (28) defining an initial chamber (annotated below) adjacent to the first end (22) and a mixing chamber (annotated below), the mixing chamber being adjacent to the second end (as seen below)25;
wherein the opening has a first height (apparent), wherein the mixing chamber has a second height, wherein the first height of the opening is less than the second height of the mixing chamber26,
PNG
media_image4.png
495
967
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the opening (at (28)) has a first height (height of (28)), wherein the mixing chamber has a second height (annotated above), and wherein the first height of the opening is less than the second height of the mixing chamber27; and
wherein the opening (at (28)) has a (first) width that is substantially equal to a (second) with of the mixing chamber28.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed system as taught by Luxton et al, such that:
the opening includes a first height, the mixing chamber includes a second height, and
wherein the first height of the opening is less than the second height of the mixing chamber.
for the benefit of causing the air from the opening to mix efficiently with the flow of a cabin air (col 5, lns 63 – 67).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber29”, the technique of discovering an optimum ratio of nozzle width to mixing chamber width is known in the art, as evidenced by Wagner et al.
Wagner et al teaches an ejector-diffuser (figs 1 – 4: (1)) comprising:
primary inlet (Vprim) [0030];
“The air distribution box is fed 23 with primary air, which is preferably processed in an air center of the building and a distribution network the induction device 1 is supplied.”
an induction unit (22) comprising a secondary inlet (Vsek) and a nozzle (24) with an opening (apparent);
a mixing chamber (27) positioned to mix conditioned air flowing though the opening with the induced flow before being ejected into an occupied space (“from this into the room to be ventilated or air conditioned”) [0016],
wherein the mixing chamber (27) has a uniform rectangular cross-section (as seen in the figures), in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber [0030], extending from the opening to an end of the mixing chamber, the cross-section comprising a width (25/26) of the mixing chamber that extends the longitudinal extent of the air discharge duct (21) [0030]
wherein the (nozzle) opening has a width that is a percentage of the width (25, 26) of the mixing chamber [0009, 0012],
PNG
media_image5.png
453
1129
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the mixing chamber width is adjustable [0032], via actuating element (11) [0034], in order to control a ratio of secondary air to primary air, to provide a pleasant climate [0039] particularly in an occupied zone where a relatively greater amount of primary air is desired [0005].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the (nozzle) opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph(s) [0027], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re Claims 11 and 15, see above, In re Claim 1, wherein the proposed passenger cabin air distribution system comprises:
an ejector-diffuser having a discharge port;
a ventilation system operable to provide a conditioned air to the ejector-diffuser through a primary inlet;
an induction unit comprising a secondary inlet and a single nozzle with an opening, wherein the opening causes a local reduction in static pressure of a flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system flowing through the opening, and wherein the local reduction in static pressure causes an induced flow of a cabin air to flow through the secondary inlet;
a mixing chamber positioned to mix conditioned air flowing though the opening with the induced flow before being ejected from the discharge port into a passenger cabin,
wherein the mixing chamber has a uniform rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to a distal end of the mixing chamber; and
wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber; and
a duct operable to receive a portion of the flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system and direct the portion of the conditioned air to a window vent and to an avionics electronics system;
wherein the passenger cabin (102) is within a spacecraft [0025, 0089] and the electronics system (fig 7: (400f)) is an avionics system30.
In re Claim 14, see above In re Claim 6, wherein the mixing chamber does not include a plurality of vanes.
In re Claim 25, see above In re Claim 7, wherein the discharge port includes a plurality of slots.
In re Claim 26, see above In re Claim 8, wherein the plurality of slots further comprises a plurality of arcuate slots.
In re Claim 16, the proposed combination has been discussed above, and discloses a method of distributing air in a passenger cabin, the method comprising:
providing a conditioned air from a ventilation system, a flow of the conditioned air is provided to an ejector-diffuser, the ejector-diffuser having a single nozzle with an opening;
locally reducing a static pressure within a high-velocity region of the ejector-diffuser by directing the flow of the conditioned air through the opening, wherein locally reducing the static pressure induces a flow of a cabin air from the passenger cabin through a secondary inlet in the ejector-diffuser;
mixing, in a mixing chamber, the flow of the conditioned air and the flow of the cabin air into a mixed air,
wherein the opening has a width that is 80 percent of a width of the mixing chamber;
ejecting (“supplying”) the mixed air into the passenger cabin, and
providing a portion of the flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system to an airflow outlet, the airflow outlet directing the portion of the conditioned air to a window vent and an electronics system, wherein the ejector-diffuser is upstream from the window vent and from electronics system along the flow of conditioned air.
Claims 17 and 18 have been cancelled by Applicant.
In re Claim 19, see above In re Claim 6, wherein Luxton et al teaches wherein the mixing chamber ((col 2, lns 18 – 20; col 5, lns 53 – 58, 63 – 67; col 6, lns 12 – 25; col 10, lns 50 – 53);) that does not include a plurality of vanes (as determined by the disclosure of the figures).
In re Claim 20, see above In re Claim 1, wherein the portion of the conditioned air is directed to the window vent through a branch positioned upstream from the electronics system.
In re Claim 21, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Walkinshaw teaches mixing the flow of the conditioned air and the flow of the cabin air comprises wherein the mixing chamber (70) includes a rectangular cross-section (as seen in fig 11B) in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber.
In re Claim 22, the proposed method has been discussed wherein Walkinshaw teaches mixing the flow of the conditioned air and the flow of the cabin air comprises wherein the mixing chamber (70) includes a uniform rectangular cross-section (as seen in figs 11A, 11B) in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber.
In re Claim 23, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Luxton et al teaches the opening (at 28) has a first height and a first width (fig 5 “slot like aperture 28”), and wherein the first width is greater than the first height.
PNG
media_image4.png
495
967
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 24, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Luxton et al teaches the mixing chamber has a second height (annotated above) that is greater than the first height (“elongated slot -like aperture”: col 9, lns 17 – 18).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al (US 2016/0325841), in view of Walkinshaw (US 2009/0311951), in view of Luxton et al (US 6,004,204), in view of Wagner et al (DE 10 2011 117091), and further in view of Scherer et al (US 6,024,639).
In re Claims 12 and 13, the proposed has been discussed (In re Claim 11, above), but lacks wherein a sensor (a smoke detector) is positioned within a flow path of the induced flow of the cabin air.
Scherer et al teaches an injector air outlet comprising a sensor (12) positioned within a flow path of the induced flow of the cabin air, wherein the sensor is a smoke detector (fig 1: (12B) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed system, as taught by Scherer et al, such that a sensor (a smoke detector) is positioned within a flow path of the induced flow of the cabin air, for the benefit of providing improvements in the safety of the passengers and crew of the aircraft.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of US 11,560,043
Claim 16, application 18/152308
Claim 16, US 11,560,043
A method of distributing air in a passenger cabin, the method comprising: providing conditioned air from a ventilation system, a flow of the conditioned air is provided to an ejector-diffuser, the ejector-diffuser having a single nozzle with an opening; locally reducing a static pressure within a high-velocity region of the ejector- diffuser by directing the flow of the conditioned air through the opening, wherein locally reducing the static pressure induces a flow of a cabin air from the passenger cabin through a secondary inlet in the ejector-diffuser; mixing the flow of the conditioned air and the flow of the cabin air into a mixed air; and ejecting the mixed air into the passenger cabin, wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the single nozzle to the cabin air in the passenger cabin is 1.002 or less.
A method of distributing air in a passenger cabin, the method comprising: providing a conditioned air from a ventilation system, a flow of the conditioned air being provided to an ejector-diffuser, the ejector-diffuser having a nozzle with an opening; locally reducing a static pressure within a high-velocity region of the ejector-diffuser by directing the flow of the conditioned air through the nozzle opening, the locally reducing the static pressure inducing a flow of a cabin air from a passenger cabin through a secondary inlet in the ejector-diffuser; mixing the flow of the conditioned air and the flow of the cabin air into a mixed air; and ejecting the mixed air into the passenger cabin; and wherein an absolute pressure ratio of the conditioned air in the nozzle to the cabin air in the passenger cabin is approximately 1.002.
As stated in the Advisory Action dated January 23, 2025, while the conflicting claims are not identical, Claim 16 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from the referenced claim because the examined application claim would have been obvious over the referenced claim.
Claims 19 – 24 are rejected, as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
The prior art made of record, not relied upon, and yet is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes Gray et al (US 10,562,649), who discloses an ejector diffuser comprising an inlet vent, a mixing section configured for mixing the air and the additional air, and an exit diffuser. In some embodiments, the mixing section includes one or more vanes for mixing the air and the additional air. The mixing section vanes assist with mixing the air; Then, the air passes through the diffuser 530 and into a crew cabin.
PNG
media_image6.png
280
303
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Further, Carrier Engineering company limited (GB 530,178) discloses:
a diffuser having a discharge port (18);
conditioned air provided to the diffuser through a primary inlet (14);
an induction unit (22) comprising a secondary inlet (17) and a nozzle (2) with an opening (as seen in the figures), wherein the opening causes a local reduction in static pressure of a flow of the conditioned air from the ventilation system flowing through the opening, and wherein the local reduction in static pressure causes an induced flow of a room air to flow through the secondary inlet;
a mixing chamber (23) positioned to mix conditioned air flowing though the opening with the induced flow before being ejected from the discharge port into a room;
PNG
media_image7.png
788
443
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the mixing chamber has a uniform rectangular cross-section, in a plane perpendicular to a direction of flow in the mixing chamber, extending from the opening to an end of the mixing chamber, and
wherein the (nozzle) opening has a width that is less than a width of the mixing chamber (as seen above in figures 2, 3)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on M – F; 9 – 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.270.6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Specification filed January 10, 2023
2 Claim 1, lines 9 – 10: “wherein the first width is substantially equal to the second width”; Claim 11, lines 10 – 11: “the first width of the elongated slot-shaped opening is substantially equal to the second width of the mixing chamber”.
3 Claims 2 – 5, 17 and 18 have been cancelled by Applicant.
4 Claim 1
5 Claim 9
6 Claim 1
7 Claim 9
8 Claims 1, 11, and 16
9 Claim 1
10 Claim 6
11 Claim 7
12 Claim 8
13 Claim 10
14 Claims 2, 3, 4
15 Claim 1
16 Claim 6
17 Claim 7
18 Claim 8
19 Claim 1
20 Claim 6
21 claims 7 and 8
22 Claim 10
23 Claims 11, 16
24 Claim 11
25 Claim 1
26 Claim 10
27Claim 10
28 Claims 1, 11, and 16
29 Claims 1, 11, and 16
30 Claim 15
Prosecution Insights